1. Interview Responses: Job Satisfaction
ASD 3 Cohort 1 (16 Participants)
12 (76%) either highly satisfied or satisfied
4 (24%) reported mixed feelings/concerns
ASD 3 Cohort 2 (18 Participants)
12 (67%) either highly satisfied or satisfied
6 (33%) satisfied, but have concerns with school administration or school system

2. Interview Themes: Impact on Current Employment
More prepared
Increased knowledge and resources
Increased knowledge of specific strategies and practices
More respected by peers and employers
Higher levels of confidence
Better able to support others
More general opportunities for leadership

3. Classroom Observations - UCF
One hour classroom observation with 10 minute post interview
Inter-observer for 50% of observations (Mean IOA = 80%)
Participants
Pilot Study Project ASD 2 Graduates (16)
Project ASD 3 Graduates Cohort 1 (16)
Project ASD 3 Graduates Cohort 2 (24)
Pre-K through High School
Across Activities

4. Observation Assessment for Teachers Providing Services to Students with ASD (OAASD)
Consists of 34 quality indicators rated on a scale of 0 (absent) to 2 (present and being actively used)
Originated with a Pepsa (Partnership for Effective Programs for Students with Autism) project
Subsequently revised and adopted by Card Centers throughout Florida and endorsed by the FLDOE
Administrator’s Guide to Educational Programming for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders and narrated PowerPoint tutorial provided to support administrators in using the instrument.

5. Quality Indicator Ratings (n=24)
Factor
Percent
0 Rating
1 Rating
2 Rating
Mean Score SD
Environmental Arrangement
5.9
20.3
73.8
1.68
0.6
Scheduling, Activities, and Intensity
6.8
17.8
75.4
1.69
Instruction and Interaction
0.9
23.8
75.3
1.75
0.5
Core Curriculum Areas
7.1
10.8
82.0
Mean Across Indicators
5.0
18.0
77.0
1.72

6. Goal Evaluation - UCF IEP Evaluation Rubric
10 components of the IEP are evaluated and scored as 0 for unacceptable, a 1 for development, and a 2 for exemplary
Goal Tracking Data Collection Rubric
Two samples of data collected for two IEP goals, each selected from a different educational domain, are evaluated and scored as 0 for unacceptable, a 1 for development, and a 2 for exemplary

7. District Evaluation System Survey Results
To what extent do you believe that:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
The teacher evaluation system in my district is appropriate and relevant for assessing special education teachers. (n=81) 1
(1%) 8
(10%) 9
(11%)
28 (35%)
35 (43%)
The teacher evaluation system at my district is helpful for improving my practice as a teacher (n=82)
12 (15%)
16 (20%)
28 (34%)
25 (30%)
My score on the teacher evaluation is an accurate reflection of the effectiveness of my teaching.
(n=77)
26 (34%)
16 (21%)
15 (19%)
12 (16%)
Mean
4.0%
19.7%
17.3%
29.3%
29.7%v

8. Thank You SDSU - OSEP Personnel Preparation Grants
H325A – Hall
H325K – Hall & Turan
H325K – Kraemer & Hall
H325K – Hall & Turan
UCF - OSEP Personnel Preparation Grants

9. Disclaimer
The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

10. Discussion Questions What measures are most meaningful for the field?
How do we address the need for valid, reliable instruments?
How do we acquire the resources to support comprehensive graduate follow-up studies?
How can we ensure follow-up study participants are representative of our graduates?